PeterB wrote:This is the op . I posted to support its general thrust.The debate about the nature of rebirth took the thread away from the posters intent...which was " to focus ...on ones daily practice " instead of engaging in speculation and proliferation.

Are you saying the debate should reiterate the original posters point of view? As far as debate goes... wouldn't that be slightly self-defeating? It's my impression that the "great rebirth debate" has been established in order to... well, debate rebirth.

Daily practice and rebirth are quite different topics, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps we can find out whether rebirth does or does not have importance for daily practice. That might be one of the benefits of this discussion. And it might touch upon the point that the original poster made. This does require that we clarify what we mean by rebirth. My understanding in this regard coincides with the traditional view of Buddhism. It means that there is a continuance of what you and I perceive as "self" beyond this physical existence and beyond this lifetime, although there is actually no self. This is in accordance with Buddhist teaching as I understand it. Furthermore, I believe that it has very important implications for practice, because practice begins with and ends with "right view". If there is no right view, then practice cannot be "right" either. It is likely misguided. Is that a point we can agree on?

The importance of the question of rebirth (in the literal sense) is obvious: it defines the larger perspective of our practice. The goal of Buddhist practice is -as you rightly say- the end of suffering. Now if rebirth is true, suffering means not just one life, but endless rounds of existence and endless suffering. For you personally. That sounds a little more dramatic and a little more personal, doesn't it? It implies that there is no escape. Death is not an end to suffering, but merely one link in the chain. It opens up an entirely different understanding of the universe. That's why I think it is an important question and that is why everyone who is interested in Buddhism should endeavour to find out about it.

nathan wrote:I'm willing to participate in the thread in the way that it seems interesting to me at the moment and that continues to be stressing the significance of the predominance of most people not knowing, to the extent that the whole idea of past life seems unreal to most people.

It does not seem unreal to me.

It does, however, seem unreal to people with a Western upbringing. Since I grew up in Europe and since I enjoyed a scientific education, I can sympathise with the intellectual difficulty that the traditional account of rebirth presents to Westerner. Personally, I have laid aside a number of culturally conditioned views, such as metaphysical materialism or annihilism, which I came to recognise as very likely false. But that has been a process of many years.

nathan wrote:Anecdotal accounts of past lives, even if everyone had such things to say, would not do anything to reduce my own ignorance about the nature of rebirth if I continue to have no insight into it of my own.

Careful. While you are right in principle, it is still necessary to scrutinise "anecdotal accounts" for their plausibility. PLEs are somewhat rare phenomena, especially PLEs with veridical features that can be substantiated empirically. I suggest to peruse the published cases carefully and come to your own conclusions. In absence of direct knowledge, that is unfortunately the best thing you can do. To dismiss them out of hand is just as inappropriate as believing them blindly.

nathan wrote:In the same way, to the extent that I have my own insights into rebirth, my insights play no role in reducing ignorance about it for anyone else.

Why not? We are not isolated beings. We can share our knowledge and insights. We can help others with our own realisations.

personally i believe in literal rebirth. it's just i don't care that much about it. and i don't think it's a necessity. i feel the non literal moment to moment view of rebirth is far more important to focus on in terms of one's daily practice.

I'd just like to mention that there's a term used in hypnotherapy called 'cryptomnesia' which means 'buried memory'.

This refers to all our stored memories from the present lifetime (including from films and TV) of things felt, seen, heard, read etc from birth onwards, which have then seemingly been forgotten about. This information can reassemble in the mind on occasions such as 'past life regression' which is therefore completely unreliable as actual evidence of past lives.

Indeed so Aloka. Any therapist can tell you how frighteningly easy is it to implant false memories even when one is trying hard not to.The human mind has an apparant need to form gestalts and patterns and narratives where none exist.

notself wrote:I will just back out of this thread if no one wants to discuss what is reborn in his own words but only wants to refer to the teachings and commentaries. What a shame since we are in the Dhammic free-for-all forum.

Kamma and Kammavipaka is "reborn". We could also say that an impersonal and delusional cause-effect process of "I, me mine," making goes on until all delusion and tendencies completely cease, at which point the process would eventually cease.

IMHO it is crucial to believe in rebirth. If we all end up freed from one life,then there would be neither much desire nor motivation to really work hard at eradication unwholesome tendencies. Furthermore to hold the idea that "there is no rebirth" IS wrong view.

"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view.

Sandaka a wise man reflects, this good teacher upholds this view and declares. There are no results for gifts-re--and there is nothing after death. If the words of these teachers are true, I should not do anything. I should not live the holy life. After death my teacher and I become equal in our recluseship. I who do not even believe it. We both get anihilated and destroyed after death. Unnecessarily these good teachers went naked and wore a knot on the head, did austerities yoked to standing and pulling out hairs of the head and beard. As for me, I lived surrounded by wife and children, enjoyed wearing Kashmire clothes, bearing flowers and scents, and earning gold and silver. I become equal with these good teachers after death. Knowing what and seeing what should I lead the holy life under these teachers. He knowing this is not a holy life turns away from it. Sandaka, this is the first holy life the Blessed One who knows and sees, is perfect and rightfully enlightened has declared should not be lived, which the wise man if possible does not live, and even if he lives is not convinced that it is merit.http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ka-e1.html

Samsara is a dangerous place. Until one is a stream-entry (saddhanusarin or dhammanusarin) there is no guarantee that one won't regress or fall into lower worlds from which is extraordinary hard to get out (MN129). Even if one does lots of wholesome activities, at the time of death if one recollects a bad deed, one can be still reborn in hell. Destination of rebirth is like stick thrown into air. Sure good kamma can make good rebirth more likely, but sometimes other factors come into play and can alter the course (SN15.9).Even if one is reborn in brahmalokas, one can still fall into hell (AN4.123).

Some may think that "oh, I am a good person. With good kamma, I'll be reborn in good circumstances. I'll never hurt anyone". But there can be many tough situations in life. What if one walks in on one's partner cheating? In the heat of the moment one may do a very unwholesome deed. What if someone were to attack you determined to either kill you (or your loved ones) or be killed himself? What if one due to good kamma is reborn as a ruler of a strong nation and *has* to send troops to war (perhaps as a defence, not an attack) and sign execution orders for criminals on death row? That is terrible kamma. What about a kamma of those pilots who dropped nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They thought that they were doing a good thing, maybe they prevented much greater casualties... However you spin it, they did a mass murder - a terrible kamma. Thus there is no certainty to "always doing good", until one is on the path of stream entry and temptations may arise. According to SN35.235 (8) if one dies thinking about gratification in any of the 6 sense faculties, one can be reborn in hell or animal realm. Only the holy path can close the door to lower rebirth.

This would not make sense if the death would mean the end of all suffering."As if smitten by a sword, As if his head were set on fire, A bhikkhu should wander mindfully In order to abandon identity view" - SN1.21(1)

Bhikkhus, one might look on equanimously at one's blazing clothes or head, paying no attention to them, but so long as one has not yetmade the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths as they really are [attain Sotapatti], in order to make the breakthrough one should arouseextraordinary desire, make an extraodinary effort, stir up zeal and enthusiasm, be unremitting, and exercise mindfulness and clearcomprehension" -SN 56.34 (4) Clothes

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the eye faculty to be lacerated by a red-hot iron pin which is burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a form cognizable by the eye. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake which is burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features … hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the nose faculty to be lacerated by a sharp nail cutter which is burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in an odour cognizable by the nose. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features … hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the tongue faculty to be lacerated by a sharp razor which is burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a taste cognizable by the tongue. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features … hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the body faculty to be lacerated by a sharp spear which is burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a tactile object cognizable by the body. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification inthe sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.

It would be better, bhikkhus, to sleep—for sleep, I say, is barren for the living, fruitless for the living than to think such thoughts as would induce one who has come under their control to bring about a schism in the Sangha. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.-SN 35.235 (8) The Exposition on Burning

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

nathan wrote:I'm willing to participate in the thread in the way that it seems interesting to me at the moment and that continues to be stressing the significance of the predominance of most people not knowing, to the extent that the whole idea of past life seems unreal to most people.

It does not seem unreal to me.

It does, however, seem unreal to people with a Western upbringing. Since I grew up in Europe and since I enjoyed a scientific education, I can sympathise with the intellectual difficulty that the traditional account of rebirth presents to Westerner. Personally, I have laid aside a number of culturally conditioned views, such as metaphysical materialism or annihilism, which I came to recognise as very likely false. But that has been a process of many years.

nathan wrote:Anecdotal accounts of past lives, even if everyone had such things to say, would not do anything to reduce my own ignorance about the nature of rebirth if I continue to have no insight into it of my own.

Careful. While you are right in principle, it is still necessary to scrutinise "anecdotal accounts" for their plausibility. PLEs are somewhat rare phenomena, especially PLEs with veridical features that can be substantiated empirically. I suggest to peruse the published cases carefully and come to your own conclusions. In absence of direct knowledge, that is unfortunately the best thing you can do. To dismiss them out of hand is just as inappropriate as believing them blindly.

nathan wrote:In the same way, to the extent that I have my own insights into rebirth, my insights play no role in reducing ignorance about it for anyone else.

Why not? We are not isolated beings. We can share our knowledge and insights. We can help others with our own realisations.

Cheers, Thomas

I disagree that it's 'necessary' to scrutinize anecdotal accounts. I've read them and they can be interesting reading but weighed against the complete absence of any personal insight into or experience with the subject that characterizes almost all people, not merely those with a western or otherwise conditioned views, the accounts (all of the accounts ever recorded) continue to be relatively insignificant overall. I again suggest considering the overwhelming absence of accounts in most people's lives.

I think it is far more important to get your own evidence.

I can reflect on some insights into rebirth that have arisen in the course of my meditative practice and life experience and in that context it seems real enough to me to not be something I need to question further. That is not the same as suggesting that my experience serves as any kind of evidence that should suffice to influence what any one else thinks about the subject.

Until I had some insights and experience of my own I was aware that I didn't have any sense of what the truth of this is and so I was able to remain open to having some insights and experiences of my own which might lead me to think about rebirth in one way or another as something directly approachable in some manner.

I didn't arrive at any direct and firsthand knowledge about the subject by taking anyone else's word for it that I should simply accept rebirth as a given in one sense or another on the basis of someone else's experience(s). It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that my insights or experiences should serve as the basis for someone else to either accept or reject rebirth.

It has never served me in any way to believe in anything without supportive insight or understanding into it, rebirth included. It has served me well to examine things directly without preconceptions and to let the first hand evidence lead where it will. It is the way I have approached things all my life. While I concur with the thinking in the Buddha's Dhamma almost entirely (to the extent that I can verify it) I have never taken any of it on faith or found it necessary or useful to believe in anything that I have no knowledge of.

While believing in rebirth may constitute right view for some people, believing in things has never contributed to reducing ignorance about anything in my case. That is what I can honestly report. I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view while undertaking an investigation of my own has continually confirmed that right view, as defined by the dhamma is actually the right view of things as they are. To get to right view, in any sense that right view matters to me, has focused primarily on examining things as they are, for me. As such the skillful means for investigation detailed in the teachings have been far more important than any of the conclusions that can be drawn out by otherwise examining the doctrines.

1st) All the children who were able to recall their previous lives, and some could even talk/chant in ancient languages

For example a 2-3 year old started to chant Buddhist suttas in perfect Pali using a no longer existing chanting style.

Dhammaruwan Story :

Dhammaruwan was born in a small village near Kandy , Sri Lanka in November, 1968. From the age of about two, before he could read or write , he spontaneously started to chant the ancient Buddhist scriptures in the original pali language , known only to a few scholar monks.

Each day, somewhere around two o’clock in the morning, after sitting in meditation with his adopted and devoted Buddhist foster father for about twenty to forty minutes, he would spontaneously start to chant pali suttas. On the Poya or lunar Observance day, he would sometimes chant for two hours.

Dhammaruwan’s foster father started making amateur recording of the chanting and invited prominent scholar monk to listen. The monk verified that it was indeed the ancient pali language and the boy were chanting it in an ancient style which no longer existed in world.

That a young boy shows signs of having been a Buddhist monk in his former live is not that unusual by itself. See related past-life memories captured in these scientific studies.

But this boy remembered a life from the 6th century, during a phase in medieval Sri Lanka where Buddhism florished and pali learning and scholarship reached a peak:

At the age of three in “Kelstan” Kandy he started to chant a certain verse of “Dammacca Sutta” (“Chakkukarani Nayanakarani….”). Ever since that day he has been chanting suttas from the tripitaka (Pali Canon) with little or no mistakes.

The chanting style of these suttas are his own and nowhere else to be found or trace back to. As the child grew in age and was able to speak more, he related where he learnt this particular style of chanting the suttas and how he was able to chant such deep and profound suttas, which even an adult find difficult to chant precisely. He has said that in 6th century A.C. he together with few monks accompanied the scholar Monk, Bhadanthachariya Buddhagosa to Sri Lanka. He has said that including him (Mudithagosa) the others were monks who had by-hearted the tripitaka or part of it. He says it is from this memory that he chants the suttas by recollecting that life. Until the age of 10 he was able to chant the suttas. The earliest recorded chanting was at the age of three.

If you know some pali you will quickly recognize that this young boy’s stress and intonation goes according to the meaning of the texts. Even scholars reading the suttas sometimes will put in stops where – according to the meaning – you need to continue and vice versa. Not so this three year old boy. Chanting the Dhammacakka sutta like he does, in my opinion, could only be done, if you

1. learnt the text by heart 2. know pali very well so as to know the meaning while chanting 3. chanted the text a million times.

2nd) Logical consequences of assumption that mental state (character traits, temperament, habits, wisdom/ignorance) is conditioned, at least partially, by previous intentional mental state. If this is so then the first mental state of a child is not blank slate, ex nihilo. It depends on previous mental state that has happened prior to this birth, from previous life.

If we reject the notion that current complex mental state (including wisdom or ignorance, character traits, temperament, habits, delusive sense of "I", mental suffering or absence of it etc) depends at least partially on previous complex mental state with its intentions, then Buddhist or ANY mental training would be useless. There would be no different mental outcome from doing good or bad intentional deeds - since those intentional mental actions would not condition the mind. Torture, rape and mutilation wouldn't affect later mental states (dueto a wrong belief that one mental state doesn't affect the other) and neither would any sort of positive mental training (meditation, selfless and caring work, development of virtues skills, etc).

And lets not forget that it is wrong view to believe in one life only. With wrong view one cannot attain paths and fruits. So it is important for the path!

With metta,

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:And lets not forget that it is wrong view to believe in one life only. With wrong view one cannot attain paths and fruits. So it is important for the path!

Annihilationist views and Eternalist views are Wrong View, as is denying the efficacy of kamma.

However why must it be so black-and-white that one either actively believes in rebirth, or actively rejects it? What happened to positions like "don't know", "don't care", "doesn't matter", "tentatively accept", "wrong question", "agnostic" and so on? Are they Wrong View? Do these positions preclude the attainment of path and fruit?

There is evidence in the Pali Canon to suggest the Buddha discouraged speculation about the future.

If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled - MN 48

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

However why must it be so black-and-white that one either actively believes in rebirth, or actively rejects it? What happened to positions like "don't know", "don't care", "doesn't matter", "tentatively accept", "wrong question", "agnostic" and so on? Are they Wrong View? Do these positions preclude the attainment of path and fruit?

These are included in "doubt" and "ignorance" (at least according to canonical Abhidhamma). So it is a hindrance.

There is evidence in the Pali Canon to suggest the Buddha discouraged speculation about the future.

If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled - MN 48

Metta,Retro.

It depends on what you mean by speculation. No atta entity passess on. It is just aggregates that arise and fall. Those who achieved recollection of former lives, and seen the working of kamma - for those good Buddhists this issue is NOT a speculation.

The topic of rebirth IS of great importance. It serves as a powerful stimulus to practice and do good. Dukkha also includes being reborn. By denying rebirth, one denies 99.9999% of Dukka, the 1st NT and makes other truths not so relevant for most people.

With metta,

Alex

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Teachings of the Buddha on RebirthThe skillfulness of one's actions in life determine one's destination after death: Dhp 17, Dhp 18, Dhp 240Causes of favorable or unfavorable Rebirth: MN 135, AN 3.65, Dhp 310, Dhp 316How to gain rebirth as an elephant or a horse: AN 10.177The laws of kamma and ~ are as inviolable as the law of gravity: SN 42.6What's so bad about being reborn?: SN 5.6Why not just settle for rebirth among the devas?: SN 5.7The preciousness of our human birth: SN 20.2, SN 56.48Rebirth witnessed by Buddha on the night of his Awakening: See Buddha's Awakening.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Alex123 wrote:These are included in "doubt" and "ignorance" (at least according to canonical Abhidhamma). So it is a hindrance.

Have a look at Nathan's post above, by way of example ( viewtopic.php?f=16&t=41&p=64980#p64930 ). Does he seem to be particularly hindered by doubt or ignorance? When there is no question, where is the doubt?

He presents a middle-path between claiming rebirth exists and claiming rebirth doesn't exist. He acknowledges that he doesn't know either of these statements to be personally verified, and thus understands that for him to make a conclusive declaration on rebirth would be beyond his range. This demonstrates integrity, honesty, and an absence of ditthupadana (attachment to views). He certainly doesn't deny rebirth though, does he? That's essentially my point... the allusion that there are only two possible positions regarding rebirth - i.e. fervent belief, or fervent disbelief... is a great misrepresentation that muddies the waters, rather than clearing them.

Speaking of ditthupadana, have a look at what Aloka and PeterB said on the last page - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=41&start=740#p64590 - see the relief and ease (sukha) that comes from relinquishing the clinging to rebirth views!

Alex123 wrote:It depends on what you mean by speculation.

By speculation, I mean the type of "conceiving in", "conceiving from", and so on as depicted in...

(Which is actually a very important sutta, so much so that it opens the Majjhima Nikaya even though many people skip right on past it to MN 2, not understanding its significance and the platform it lays for the entire Nikaya)

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Aloka wrote:.I'd just like to mention that there's a term used in hypnotherapy called 'cryptomnesia' which means 'buried memory'.

Aloka, this is nothing new to me. I am familiar with subconscious memories, false memories, and cryptomnesia. I am also familiar with the skeptical arguments brought forward against regression and PLEs. Believe it or not, I've studied this for a number of years and I have done my homework. The thing is: these counter arguments don't hold in the cited cases. If you had watched the video by Peter Ramster you would probably not even have brought this up. The verification experiments have been set up intentionally to exclude these types of explanations. If a person comes to a place where he/she has never been before in her life and correctly identifies obscure facts, this cannot be explained with cryptomnesia or false memories.

Yes, it is possible to implant false memories into people (though not always easy depending on their susceptibility to hypnosis and suggestion), but it is generally not possible to explain how false memories lead to veridical claims. For example, if someone refers to obscure people, events, and things that have actually existed in the past, and if these claims can be verified, false memories are an unlikely explanation. As mentioned before, the only alternative explanation is conspiracy and elaborate fraud.

Furthermore, the class of cases that Ian Stevenson reported cannot be attacked by this kind of argument, because these are not regression PLEs, but spontaneously reported memories of young children, as well as birthmarks and cases of xenoglossy. The Stevenson research is probably the best scientificapproach until today. For example, how do you explain people spontaneously remembering their (violent) death in a previous life showing birthmarks at the location of injury? Of course, they could have made it up. But what if the story is verified by third parties, as in all of Stevenson cases?

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to debate anecdotal evidence about past lives or cast doubt on rebirth. I can understand the role that both intellectual reasoning and faith in the triple gem would typically play in leading people out of ignorance and into real knowledge about things like dependent origination and rebirth. I have been suggesting that the kind of mindfulness and intellectual honesty that will be supportive of developing a lasting and entirely satisfying knowledge of one's own should be able to distinguish between the qualities of reasoning, faith and the kind of direct knowledge which neither relies on reasoning or faith. In my case I don't arrive at a satisfying kinds of direct knowledge without the capacity to distinguish that kind of evidence of things as they are from the other kinds of understanding characteristic of reasoning and faith. There is important qualitative differences between these kinds of understanding and I think it is important to be mindful of what is what in ones own mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that reasoning and faith have no place in the process of arriving at the kind of gnosis that we ultimately seek.

To be honest I have to say that I do think I have compelling evidence that DO is something that I know to be real for me personally. To try to argue for DO or rebirth on that basis however has never contributed to developing the same kind of insight and experience for anyone else. Anything I might say about my own insights and experiences only serves to generate more argument for people who would like to argue about such things. Investigating for oneself, in the skillful ways taught by the Buddha, is the only way anyone can arrive at the kind of direct knowledge that will be found to be irrefutable by anyone who honestly applies themselves to really finding out for themselves. When we do that it doesn't matter what anyone else says about these things because we can see for ourselves how things are.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Alex123 wrote:If we all end up freed from one life,then there would be neither much desire nor motivation to really work hard at eradication unwholesome tendencies. Furthermore to hold the idea that "there is no rebirth" IS wrong view.

I could not agree more. There is an unfortunate tendency by some Western Buddhists to explain away rebirth by philosophical argument. These arguments interpret rebirth as a metaphor for natural processes of metamorphosis and transformation, or as a metaphor for abstract processes of cause and effect. Such interpretations are digressive. Rebirth in Buddhism is simultaneously a universal law and a personal reality. Actually, it doesn't get more personal than that.

nathan wrote:...weighed against the complete absence of any personal insight into or experience with the subject that characterizes almost all people, not merely those with a western or otherwise conditioned views, the accounts (all of the accounts ever recorded) continue to be relatively insignificant overall. I again suggest considering the overwhelming absence of accounts in most people's lives.

Let me get this straight. You state that because most people are ignorant (of past lifes), they should not consider the reports of those people who are not ignorant? Is this what you are saying? I doubt this is a valid argument. Consider a similar phenomenon: NDEs. Should we ignore NDEs just because we did not personally have one? Or is it a subject worthwhile of study nevertheless? Is personal ignorance ever a reason for NOT studying a subject? Where would that idea lead us?

nathan wrote:I think it is far more important to get your own evidence.

Unfortunately, your suggestion is a little impractical. We simply don't have the means and the resources to "get our own evidence" for any arbitrary piece of knowledge from quantum physics to reincarnation. It is of course highly beneficial to seek first-hand evidence for any subject matter close to our interest; alas not always possible.

You had the benefit of meditative insight into rebirth (if I interpret your reply correctly). I had the benefit of insight into rebirth through other (involuntary) circumstances in my life. But please consider that not everybody has first-hand experience. My point is that as long as we don't have first-hand knowledge, we need to rely on second-hand knowledge. And since we don't have a choice in that matter, we might as well make sure that our second-hand knowledge has a sound foundation. Empirical research might provide just that.

nathan wrote:While believing in rebirth may constitute right view for some people, believing in things has never contributed to reducing ignorance about anything in my case. [...] I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...

You seem to suggest that views are intrinsically ambiguous and unhelpful as long as you haven't verified them personally. I can disprove this by a simple thought experiment. Consider two people with opposite beliefs. One believes that it will rain in the afternoon and the other believes that it won't rain. The first person carries an umbrella, the second doesn't. In the afternoon it rains. The person who carried an umbrella stays dry; the other one gets wet and catches a cold. Now, which of those beliefs was more useful?

You are right in saying that a belief does not reduce ignorance, even if the belief is true. However, correct belief certainly helps to make correct decisions. The epistemological problem is not belief, but justification, which is basically about the question: How do we distinguish true from false beliefs?

Aloka wrote:.I'd just like to mention that there's a term used in hypnotherapy called 'cryptomnesia' which means 'buried memory'.

Aloka, this is nothing new to me. I am familiar with subconscious memories, false memories, and cryptomnesia. I am also familiar with the skeptical arguments brought forward against regression and PLEs. Believe it or not, I've studied this for a number of years and I have done my homework. The thing is: these counter arguments don't hold in the cited cases. If you had watched the video by Peter Ramster you would probably not even have brought this up. The verification experiments have been set up intentionally to exclude these types of explanations. If a person comes to a place where he/she has never been before in her life and correctly identifies obscure facts, this cannot be explained with cryptomnesia or false memories.

Yes, it is possible to implant false memories into people (though not always easy depending on their susceptibility to hypnosis and suggestion), but it is generally not possible to explain how false memories lead to veridical claims. For example, if someone refers to obscure people, events, and things that have actually existed in the past, and if these claims can be verified, false memories are an unlikely explanation. As mentioned before, the only alternative explanation is conspiracy and elaborate fraud.

Furthermore, the class of cases that Ian Stevenson reported cannot be attacked by this kind of argument, because these are not regression PLEs, but spontaneously reported memories of young children, as well as birthmarks and cases of xenoglossy. The Stevenson research is probably the best scientificapproach until today. For example, how do you explain people spontaneously remembering their (violent) death in a previous life showing birthmarks at the location of injury? Of course, they could have made it up. But what if the story is verified by third parties, as in all of Stevenson cases?

Buddha said :

"And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.

"And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called not chasing after the past.

Bhaddekaratta Sutta MN 131

Also :

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

. _/\_

Last edited by Aloka on Tue May 11, 2010 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.